Good day everyone. This is Paul and you are watching the Langfocus channel.
And today we're going to talk about some interesting stuff.
We're going to talk about the difference between a language and dialect.
Now what is the difference?
All over the world, there are people who speak closely related forms of communication.
Sometimes they are called different languages. Sometimes they are called dialects of one language.
So, how do we decide which one they are?
Sometimes there's some disagreement about which one a particular form of communication is.
Is it a dialect or is that a separate language?
A dialect really means a variety of speech that differs somewhat from another variety of speech of that same language.
It could differ in grammar. It could differ in phonology or pronunciation. It could differ in vocabulary.
It could differ in all of those maybe.
Sometimes, those dialects are based in different regions. They are regional varieties of a language.
Sometimes they are ethnic varieties of a language.
For example, maybe there are two ethnic groups living in a city. But historically, they've lived separate
and not really interacted with each other because of racism or whatever.
And they've developed a separate dialect because of that separation.
So they're almost living in two worlds within the same city, that kind of thing. So...
It's almost like a different regional dialect inside your own town if you know what I mean.
Now, within every language, there is some degree of variety, some degree of difference.
There are some different spoken varieties of every language.
So how do we decide if it's close enough to the language to be considered a dialect? And when is it not?
One of the main criteria that is most often used is mutual intelligibility.
That means the speakers of those two different varieties of the language can understand each other,
fully or almost fully understand each other. We would say they're mutually intelligible in that case.
So, according to this definition, simply if you can understand each other, you can understand them,
you can make yourself understood to them, then you are speaking the same language.
And if even if there's some degree of difference in grammar or phonology or vocabulary,
those are dialectal differences because you can understand each other.
The languages are close enough that they are considered the same language, according to that definition.
Now the problem with this definition is that sometimes speakers of
what is considered to be one language often can't understand each other.
Like, for example, often, I can't understand people who speak a Scottish dialects of English.
[a bell is ringing]
[ununderstandable scottish speech part]
Often I can't understand people who speak a Scottish dialects of English.
Or sometimes an Australian dialect of English if they come from like the deep countryside of Australia,
sometimes I can't understand them.
And this is especially true if I over-hear two of those people speaking together.
I hear them speaking with each other not directly to me, then they'll speak in their full on different accent,
different dialect and sometimes I can't understand.
So are we speaking a different language, because it's not mutually intelligible?
So that's kind of the difficult point of this definition.
Sometimes I can't understand other speakers of English. But...
I think it's the same language and so do they. So... what's going on there?
So that brings me to another criteria of what would make two spoken varieties just dialects of one language.
And that is this :
both of those varieties use the same written standard variety of the language.
They use the same written standard, the same written language
Even though the spoken language may differ somewhat.
So that would explain why I speak English and a Scottish person speaks English, even if there may be some trouble communicating
We both use the same written language. We both write in the same way. We read the same books.
And then when we speak to each other, we can adapt our speech to make it a little bit more like the written standard.
Now that's why we can communicate, even though I can't really understand their variety of English,
when they speak the pure form, when they speak it with each other.
I don't really know what they're saying a lot of the time
But when they speak to me, they kind of use book-English a little bit, literary English.
They use more of the written standard and mix it in with their natural dialect,
to make it understandable to me and I think I do the same unconsciously.
That's what makes us speakers of the same language, the fact that we... blend our variety of speech with that same written standard.
And that's what helps us to communicate, across the dialects.
Now, the one weakness in this criterion is that there are people who can't really speak to the standard language, that well.
So that's true in English: you have some people who are uneducated, maybe the poor, maybe highschool dropouts,
maybe the type of people who just don't really care about studying or speaking properly.
They don't really know the standard language; they might understand it but they can't speak like that. So...
Are those speakers of the same language even though they don't really know how to use the standard written language properly?
So that's kind of the trouble with that criterion. But, so far, that's the best criterion that I've found
to explain what is a dialect and what's a language: that written common standard language.
Now, as with all things in life, the situation gets just messy when we bring politics into it.
Because, sometimes, we have we have two varieties of language that are almost exactly the same.
But they have two different names in two different countries, or...
They're spoken by two different ethnic groups and they both claim that language is their own.
So they call it by different names and it causes a lot of weird confusion.
So I think it's like that in the former Yugoslavia for some of the languages there.
There are people who just don't want to be associated with the other people. So they called the language by the name of their own ethnic group.
Even though, it's the same as the language of another ethnic group basically.
So even though the standard written language might be pretty much the same, might be slightly different, but it's pretty much the same
and the spoken language is pretty much the same maybe with some variation, but...
they're mutually intelligible, even the standard written language is mutually intelligible,
they call it a different language because of whack ass politics
I don't like politics. I'm not a political person. I'm more interested in cultures and in people.
So I don't really buy that definition. I don't like it when people say we speak a different language because...
we have a different ethnic group, a different nationality.
We're going to call this language ours. It's not yours, it's ours.
I don't really like that kind of territorial claiming of languages. So, I don't buy this definition
I think if you can speak together with each other and it's mutually intelligible,
you can read the same books then, in my opinion, you're speaking the same language.
I don't really buy the political definition of what's the language and what's a dialect.
So basically my definition of a dialect is that it's mutually comprehensible with another variety of language.
So, if you can communicate with them, they understand you, you understand them
and you can use the written language elements of the written language to make yourself even more understood,
then I think you are speaking dialects of the same language.
I hope that is helpful. I hope that give you some... something to think about.
Leave your comments down below. Tell me if you agree with my opinion on this matter.
Alright. This is Paul... signing off.
See ya...